Siegmund Feilbogen, L’École autrichienne d’économie politique. Wieser (1912)

Feilbogen’s French article situates Wieser’s political thought and theory of value within the Austrian school. The supplied installment moves from an intellectual portrait to the foundations of economic valuation, ending with the problem of calculation under socialism. Its central connection is between individual motives and collective outcomes: neither political authority nor market price can be understood without examining the judgments and relationships beneath it.

Parmi les disciples de Menger, après Boehm-Bawerk, nous avons cité Wieser.

English translation: Among Menger's disciples, after Boehm-Bawerk, we have cited Wieser.

This placement establishes Wieser’s intellectual lineage while opening a contrast with Boehm-Bawerk’s narrower concentration on capital. Feilbogen emphasizes Wieser’s historical interests and the development of his political outlook. Youthful admiration for heroic individuals gives way to an apparently opposite explanation of historical change:

A l'Université, la lecture de Spencer le fait passer brusquement d'un extrême à l'autre et le voilà pénétré de cette nouvelle conviction que les foules anonymes constituent, à elles seules, la force motrice de l'évolution historique.

English translation: At the University, the reading of Spencer makes him pass abruptly from one extreme to the other, and there he is, imbued with the new conviction that anonymous masses alone constitute the driving force of historical evolution.

Wieser’s mature position reconciles these alternatives through the interdependence of leaders and followers. Authority requires adhesion: leaders act effectively by recognizing collective aspirations, not simply by imposing their will. Feilbogen contrasts this account with Sorel’s confidence in militant minorities and mobilizing myths. Illusions may provoke upheaval, but they cannot supply the competence and cooperation needed for lasting institutions. A proletarian government, too, would require education and constructive collaboration beyond its immediate supporters.

Ainsi, le système politique de Wieser nous ramène à la réalité des pouvoirs sociaux, tout en laissant son rôle utile aux minorités agissantes.

English translation: Thus Wieser's political system brings us back to the reality of social powers, while still leaving their useful role to the active minorities.

The political portrait thus prepares an analysis attentive both to individual initiative and to its social conditions. In economics, Feilbogen distinguishes the value prevailing in existing society, which he calls “positive,” from Wieser’s “natural” value under socialism. He rejects the identification of market price with an objective collective judgment. Exchange registers the overlapping valuations of actual buyers and sellers, not the opinions or needs of everyone affected. The example of a duchess purchasing diamonds makes this limitation concrete: the parties’ willingness to trade says nothing about the attendant whose child lacks medical care.

Feilbogen consequently separates personal valuation, which helps cause prices, from the impersonal numerical valuation derived from them. This distinction resolves the apparent circularity of explaining price through value and value through price. Value expresses human interest directed toward things; it involves attachment, initiative, and willingness to sacrifice. Economic explanation must reconstruct these motives rather than treat observed prices as sufficient evidence of social usefulness.

The argument then turns against labor as an independent source of value. The political question of who should own a product must be distinguished from the analytical question of what makes it valuable. Labor has value only insofar as it is useful, yet usefulness alone cannot explain the contrast between expensive diamonds and cheaper necessities. Marginal utility supplies the missing relation between needs and available quantities. Scarcity obliges individuals to compare competing uses, and value condenses these comparisons into a practical guide to action. Increasing production in one field does not remove this constraint, because it diverts resources from other possible uses.

The closing discussion qualifies marginal valuation by distinguishing it from total utility. Collective bargaining or a strike can bring the usefulness of an entire labor group into consideration, rather than leaving remuneration to isolated transactions. Public railways and inexpensive housing may likewise justify provision below cost because their collective benefits exceed commercial returns. Such judgments, however, are less precise than marginal calculations; public enterprises still need cost accounting.

The transition toward socialism preserves this requirement while challenging existing price relations. Economic calculation would remain necessary, but present prices reflect unequal purchasing power as well as the intensity of needs. Luxury demand can therefore command resources without demonstrating superior social importance. Feilbogen’s exposition makes subjective value theory compatible with criticism of market outcomes: explaining how prices arise does not establish their adequacy as measures of collective welfare.